So V ote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 8:27:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is not the reason why the members of the Conservative Party have difficulty with this bill. The reality is that when it comes to diabetes and contraceptives, millions of Canadians will actually have benefits that many of them would never have had without the passage of this legislation. The member might be sympathetic as an individual member, but let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party of Canada, under the current far-right leadership of the leader today, does not support national pharmacare in any fashion whatsoever. The member should not be trying to confuse the debate on this issue, to try to imply that it is some bogus reason as to why they are not supporting it. He might support it individually, but the party, the official opposition, does not.

139 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 7:57:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, we are talking about pharmacare and the member is talking about cutting the carbon tax. Let me read a quote from Linda Silas: “Every day, nurses witness the profound impact of poor access to medications on their patients’ health.” She has addressed this to all members of Parliament. Further down she says, “Get it done for the sake of our patients, for the future of our health care system and for the well-being of our country. VOTE “YES” ON BILL C-64.” Linda happens to be the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. Could the member provide his thoughts on why the Conservative Party is going against our professional health care providers, who really want to see this legislation pass because they understand it?

136 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 7:32:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to this legislation today. There are some aspects of public policy that I have had a great deal of interest in over the years, not only here in Ottawa, but also during the days I spent in the Manitoba legislature. Canadians have a justified expectation that provincial and federal governments will work together on the important issue of health care. It is part of our Canadian identity. In many ways, it is one of the biggest treasures we have as Canadians. At the end of the day, when I look at this legislation, Bill C-64, I see it as a significant step forward in recognizing just how important it is, when we talk about health care, that medications need to be incorporated in a very real and tangible way into the discussions. I think of the number of people over the years who have ended up going to emergency services, had a premature death or were in situations where there were additional costs for health care. Imagine the number of different pharmacare programs that are scattered throughout the provinces. Even within a province, there are multiple different forms of pharmacare programs being provided. However, even with all of those hundred-plus national or provincial insurance programs that are out there, there are still many Canadians, hundreds of thousands, who have absolutely no insurance for prescribed medicines. This policy that is sound and makes sense. Therefore, I am bewildered as to why, yet again, we see the official Reform Party across the way saying no to Canadians on what I believe is a significant step forward toward a national pharmacare program. It would start off with two medications, in two areas. I believe Canadians would overwhelmingly be in support of this. Whether it is people in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. or Atlantic Canada, we will find resounding support for this initiative, and I would like to think that Conservatives, at some point in time, will open their eyes and have a better appreciation for the true benefits of this program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about it in this House for many years. For the last half-dozen or so years, I have raised the issue. I have presented petitions on the issue. Whenever I had the opportunity to highlight the importance of pharmacare, I would often make reference to the importance of the federal government working with provincial governments across the country to encourage more participation in a truly national program. Interprovincial migration happens all the time. I have family members who live in different provinces. In fact, I have a brother who lives in B.C. and a sister who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. The types of coverage vary. We all have opinions. Because this includes medication for people with diabetes and contraceptives for women, we would all benefit directly because we all have family members or know people who would benefit from that. I would personally love to see an add-on to it with respect to shingles. I understand that in some provinces there is better coverage than in other provinces. That is one reason I would argue, as my daughter has in Manitoba, that we need to get provinces to come to the table in such a way that we could recognize the best pharmacare program that we could have, while expanding it to what it ideally could and should be into the future, with a higher sense of co-operation. I believe that is the answer. I think it was back in 2016 or 2017, I recall being on Keewatin Street in the north end of Winnipeg, asking people to sign a petition on the importance of national health care and on a national pharmacare program. The NDP House leader made reference to a Quebec union and its thoughts about ensuring not only that this program sees the light of the day, but also that all politicians get behind it. There is a saying from the national nurses union that health care workers understand and they appreciate. If one goes into a hospital, one will find, at least in Manitoba, that one's medications are covered. When one leaves the hospital, depending on their situation and what kind of a plan they might have, they will get their medication. Many may not have a plan, so they will not get the medications, and often, the person returns to a hospital situation. I have talked to individuals, particularly seniors, who talk about medications versus food. That is a real discussion that takes place, sadly. From a personal point of view, the pharmacare program has been more important to me than the dental care program, and we have seen the success of the dental care program. As a government, with the Prime Minister, we have seen how much Liberals value our health care system, our Canadian identity, virtually from the get-go with the buying of prescription medications to be circulated in order to support provinces, until not that long ago when we made a contribution of $198 billion over the next 10 years to support our health care system so that we can enhance programs such as staffing requirements, long-term care and mental health. Those are expectations our constituents have. That is the type of thing that we are delivering because we have seen agreement after agreement with provinces and Ottawa dealing with health care, and we recognize just how important the issue is. We continue to be able to work with the different jurisdictions. I believe that when we think about issues like mental health, dental services, pharmaceuticals and long-term care, they are all things that I believe, through the Canada Health Act, we have a responsibility to show leadership for. I like to think that whether it is a territory or a province, there is a some semblance of what we could expect and that it would be of a similar nature. That is why we have transfer payments, equalization payments and so much more. That is why we have a government that not only understands it, but it brings in budgetary measures to support it and legislative measures like we are debating today on Bill C-64. The Conservative Party needs to wake up and understand what Canadians want. That is better quality health care, and Bill C-64 delivers just that. Conservatives should be voting in favour of it, not filibustering.

1091 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 6:58:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts with regard to how the Government of Canada works with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, to look at ways that we can support Canadians in terms of medications. I see this as a good, solid first step for pharmacare. I would ask him to add some comments with respect to that.

64 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/23/24 6:39:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the answer of the specific question right away, but I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the valuable role that caregivers provide to our communities in every region of the country. They do incredible work. Because of the fine work they do, people's lives are that much better, and in many ways they get to continue to live in communities, maybe where they have grown up from childhood, and communities in which, maybe because of some sort of a devastating accident, they find themselves in need of having a caregiver. I wanted to acknowledge at the very beginning how important caregivers are to our communities and to our society and thank them from a personal perspective. I know the feelings I have toward caregivers and the fine work that they do is shared among all members of Parliament. I can definitely speak on behalf of the Liberal caucus because I know that to be true. I think of what the government has done specifically. The Canada caregiver credit is a non-refundable tax credit for those who have expenses linked to taking care of a disabled or impaired family member. As one example, this tax credit is intended to compensate caregivers for non-discretionary, out-of-pocket expenses incurred while offering care. It applies both for physical and mental impairment and extends to spouses and their families, children or parents. This allows families that are burdened with taking care of an impaired loved one to expense up to $8,000 on their tax return. There are things that we do that are very direct, and I would suggest that this is direct. There are also things that take place that are indirect but also very supportive. For example, in the budget, for the first time ever, we have a nationwide disability program, which would see literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in an area. Many of the recipients who would be receiving this are individuals who are receiving care also. We will see that by providing this sort of additional support. I think it might be the single largest expenditure in a budget line for new programming. It is a significant amount of money. We are looking at ways in which we can support caregivers, whether directly through deductions or indirectly through ways we can enhance opportunities for or the independence of individuals who have disabilities, and each complements the other. This is not a government that says we are just going to take a look at one aspect of how we can support caregivers. I think that there are different ways we can not only acknowledge, but support, caregivers and individuals who are recipients of caregivers' actions. I see that as a positive step forward. It is important that the national government continues to work with other authorities, in particular our provinces, which also provide independent living types of programs and enhanced care programs.

494 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/23/24 5:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the disability program, the dental program, the pharmacare program or the housing needs of Canada, I believe many of the measures we see before us today are there because Canadians have an expectation of the government and the government is providing these services. I like to think they are services that should be available across the country. I will use the specific example of diabetes and the medicines that are required. Many of the members' constituents across the country will benefit from that, as will many of the constituents I represent. Is that not a good thing? Does the member not support that?

108 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/23/24 4:05:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think of the national disability program that is being rolled out here in Canada, the dental program that is here in Canada and the pharmacare program, in particular for people with diabetes, and I know for a fact that there will be many people, hundreds if not potentially thousands of constituents whom the member currently represents who would benefit from those programs. Is the member suggesting that the federal government should just cancel those programs and hope and pray that every province in Canada brings in its own programs?

92 words

Context: House Hansard - 315 - May/22/24

May/23/24 3:35:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I get a flashback of being with my daughter Cindy, who is an MLA in the province of Manitoba, and I can recall us being on Keewatin Street, where we had these signs. We were saying that we wanted to have a national pharmacare program and that it would be wonderful to see the Province of Manitoba work with Ottawa to make that happen. I can recall a throne speech a few years back in which Ottawa made reference to the fact that we were looking for a willing province. I like to think that, now that Manitoba has an NDP government, maybe we will get that much more sympathy for getting it. I have introduced many petitions over the years on the importance of a pharmacare program. I have spoken to it inside the House on many occasions. Am I glad that it is here? I am glad. I believe the NDP also played an important role in it, and I give them credit for that, but I think that there are members of Parliament on all sides of the House, although maybe not among the Conservatives, but possibly, who support the idea of having a national pharmacare program, because it makes a whole lot of sense. When I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the health care critic. I can tell members that a national pharmacare program, especially if one gets the provinces working with Ottawa, could really do some wonderful things. It would be to the betterment of all of us.

257 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/22/24 7:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing just how the Conservative Party does not get it. We are talking about millions of Canadians who will directly benefit from the passage of this legislation. The member wonders why it is that we have to bring in some form of a closure motion. The member himself is the one who started the debate. He has already been debating it now for well over a half hour. It is because the Conservatives do not support pharmacare, unlike the Liberal Party that understands its true value. Millions of Canadians are going to benefit by this program. Can the member be very clear and explain to his constituents, to Canadians, why the Conservative Party does not see the benefits of supporting people who have diabetes? Think of the seniors on fixed incomes. Why does the Conservative Party not support pharmacare?

144 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/9/24 12:26:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the manner and the tone in which the member speaks about what is a very serious issue in Canada today. While I was listening to him, I thought about how we need to recognize that the way we have to deal with the crisis before us today is multi-faceted. I thought about how important it is to work with health care professionals, first responders, communities and different levels of government to ensure that we get this right. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we work in consultation, in a co-operative fashion, in order to save lives, as well as anything else he might want to add to that?

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 310 - May/7/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/7/24 4:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard Conservative or Reform members, or however one might want to address members opposite, say that the federal government does not have a role to play in health care. We heard them say that they do not support a pharmacare program, yet a vast majority of Canadians want a Canada health system that reflects the Canada Health Act and see the value of a pharmacare program. Can the member clearly indicate why he and the Reform Party or the Conservative Party do not believe that the federal government has a role to play when it comes to a national health care system?

106 words

May/6/24 7:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been advocating for this type of legislation for a number of years. This is something that has been brought into Liberal platform positions in the past. This is something about which the government is very serious. Again, the member just reinforced that the Conservative Party does not support national pharmacare. I think Canadians need to be fully aware of that.

64 words

May/6/24 7:34:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what has become very clear is that Canadians should be concerned if they support the concept of a national pharmacare program. They need to know that the Conservative Party of Canada will not support pharmacare and a national pharmacare program. Member after member has stood up who will clearly be voting against this legislation. There is no doubt that it will be on the axing block if the Conservative leader ever forms government. People should not take this for granted. I think that Conservatives need to be clear with Canadians on this very important issue. Pharmacare would complement our health care system, and this is something that we should all be voting in favour of. I am very much concerned that the Conservative Party appears to be voting against this legislation.

133 words

Pharmacare

May/6/24 7:32:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it be the Prime Minister, members of cabinet or members of Parliament within the Liberal ranks, I think that we all have been very strong advocates on that particular point. I would suggest to the member that there is potential. As I cited, Saskatchewan played a very important role in regard to health care. Quebec played a very important role in regard to child care. I would love to see Manitoba play an important role on the further development of a pharmacare program that would be something that we could share with different provinces. I believe the best way we can deliver the best type of pharmacare program would be to have different levels of government working together for the betterment of Canadians. I am an optimist. I am going to hold out and believe that the Province of Manitoba and others will seriously look at ways to make the program more successful.

156 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/6/24 7:06:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-64

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to what members have to say about Bill C-64. In some areas, I am not surprised. In other areas, I am surprised. Let me provide a bit of an overview before I get into more detail. When I think of pharmacare and the potential that pharmacare has for all Canadians, I think that we undervalue and underestimate the degree to which Canadians as a whole would support not only the concept, but also the implementation, of a true pharmacare program. This is not new for me. I have been talking about pharmacare for many years. I have been an advocate for it because I understand and believe in the benefits of a national program. There is no province or territory in Canada that has absolutely free prescribed medications for its population. Everything depends on the province that one is in. It could be based on age or affordability, but there are all sorts of different variations. There is public sector participation and private sector participation. There is a wide spectrum, a smorg, of different ways that pharmaceuticals are being delivered in Canada. That is the reason I asked the Bloc member to provide more detail of the plan in Quebec. Someone will stand up to says it is free in Quebec, but this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not free. Many would say that, if we have to pay a deductible or an annual premium, and if things are not in it that should be incorporated, it is not free. I am glad the member said that there is room for improvement. No matter what program we are talking about, there is always room for improvement. I suggest that the way we should be looking at the whole issue of pharmacare is to take a holistic approach to the expectations people have for health care in general. I have said many times in the past how important health care is to all people in Canada, in all regions of our nation. That has not been lost on the government. The Bloc will say it does not want Ottawa to be involved, other than to hand out money. That particular attitude does not surprise me, and I will add further comments on that in a bit. What really surprises me is the Conservative Party's approach to health care. It is demonstrated with Bill C-64. People need to be aware of this. At the end of the day, we value and treasure health care here in Canada. The Canada Health Act protects the integrity of the system in all regions. It is one of the reasons the federal government allocates the billions of dollars it does for federal transfer payments. We have seen a national government and, in particular, a prime minister, our Prime Minister, who has taken a health care initiative, recognizing how important it is to Canadians. We are looking at ways to enhance it, to build a stronger health care system. Nationalized health care or the Canada Health Act are established, and many other countries today that have that form of legislation or that sort of delivery of health care have already incorporated a national pharmacare program. One does not have to be a Liberal or a New Democrat to see the benefits of it. I used to be the health critic in the province of Manitoba, and I understand just how critical medicine actually is to our health care system. We can think about it in the sense that, if a person gets sick and goes into a hospital, they receive medications in that emergency setting. I do not believe any province is actually charging for that. This is virtually universal now across Canada. It might be because of an ulcer issue, some sort of a bleed or any other need that might be there. If a person has to stay in a hospital facility for however long a time, the hospital staff does not say, “Well, here's a bandage. By the way, you're going to have to pay for that.” Or for medication, maybe a painkiller, they do not put out their hand, saying, “We want money before we inject the painkiller.” However, the moment that person leaves the hospital, then it changes. This may not happen in every province, as some provinces might cover prescribed medications more than others, some might not charge as much, some will have a deductible and, as I said, some will have those annual premiums. What happens, generally speaking, is that the individual leaves the hospital and finds that now they are going to have to start paying for the medications. I cannot tell members how many 55-plus facilities, personal care facilities or independent living facilities I have been to where they talk about the cost of medications, with diabetes being one of them. They will tell us, “Look, we cannot afford the medication.” As a result, I would suggest that there are many people who end up going back to hospitals because they are not getting the medications they require. This is because of decisions they have actually had to make in terms of buying and purchasing the medication versus food or possibly rent, or the amount of medications that are required and the bill that is associated with that. Those are the types of things that end up costing communities, society and the taxpayer a whole lot more when that individual ends up returning to the hospital because they were not taking the medications that were necessary in order to keep them out of the hospital facility. The problem with the debate on the pharmacare issue is that I would have liked to hear more about, collectively as a House, seeing the value of this and that we want to move forward. This is what Bill 64 is doing; it is moving us forward on a very important issue. I would rather have seen everyone coming to an agreement that, yes, this is good stuff, we should be supporting it, and then adding value to that. I think of Cardine, whom I met at a local restaurant on a Saturday. She was talking about the issue of the shingles vaccination and how this is something people should not necessarily have to pay for. I raised that with some of my colleagues. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I know it is not on the list. At the end of the day, some provinces, from what I understand, provide coverage for shingles vaccination for those 55 and over, or maybe 60 and over, whereas some provinces do not. However, I was suggesting, by bringing it up, that this is the type of discussion I would like to hear more about, but not in terms of how we keep Ottawa away from the issue of pharmacare or developing a national program. I do not think that is what our constituents want to hear. I believe they want to see consistency, where they can, in the different regions of our country. I have presented many petitions in the House on the issue of pharmacare. I have consulted and talked about pharmacare at the door for years. I understand who has what kind of responsibility in health. As I said, I was a health care critic in the province of Manitoba. However, I do not understand denying the opportunity for a federal government to participate in providing contraceptives or diabetes medications. I do not understand how opposition parties could oppose that, no matter what province they are from. Tell me a province, and I say that to all members, that provides any form of support for contraceptives today. I am not aware of any, but I could be wrong on that. How could anyone say that the legislation would not be of benefit for all Canadians? It is a major part of the legislation. When we think of diabetes, we are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians; we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would be affected by Bill C-64. What are opposition members afraid of? If they were truly listening to what people are saying in their communities, I would suggest that they should talk more about the issue of health care. I talk a great deal about health care in my riding. I understand why it is so important. An hon. member: It's provincial. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, a Conservative heckles across the way, and she is consistent with other Conservative members who say it is a provincial responsibility. That is the attitude. We can remember, at the beginning, I said that the Bloc does not surprise me. I understand why Bloc members do not support it. It is a separatist party. It would just as soon Ottawa hand over the money, then Quebec would take the money and develop the programming. In contrast, the Conservative Party thinks it is a provincial responsibility. People need to be aware, because it is the same as the member's off-the-cuff heckle. I would suggest that it is not just a provincial responsibility. If the member truly understood the Canada Health Act and, more importantly, her constituents, she would quickly realize that it is not just a provincial responsibility. Even when I was in the Manitoba legislature, I argued and articulated that health care is not solely the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba. I like to think that, at the end of the day, all provinces have a responsibility to follow the Canada Health Act. When I talk to people about the pharmacare program and Bill C-64, it is a positive discussion. I have yet to hear anyone, outside the Conservative Party, tell me that Ottawa moving forward with respect to a national pharmacare program is a bad thing. I cannot recall anyone saying that we should not be doing this. That might precipitate a few emails to me, but at the end of the day, I believe it is because people truly appreciate and understand the value. That is why I said before the interruptions that one has to take a holistic approach to health care. Let us look at what has happened since 2015, when a new Prime Minister was elected and the agenda of health care started to change in a very positive way. It was not that long ago, and I referred to this earlier, that we actually had the Prime Minister in Winnipeg at a press conference at the Grace Hospital. My colleague would be very familiar with the Grace Hospital. At the end of the day, we had the premier of the province, the provincial minister of health, the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. We talked about the future of health care and how the $198 billion over 10 years would have a positive impact not only for today but for tomorrow, thinking of generations ahead. We talked about how it would impact the province of Manitoba. Let us think about the number of agreements that have been achieved by the government with the different provinces and territories and indigenous community leaders, all dealing directly or indirectly with the well-being and health of people. Something that was missing previously was the type of financial commitment, along with the sense of co-operation. Then we look at the type of national programs that we would bring in, which would make a difference. People talk about the dental program as an example. Having a dental program ultimately helped literally thousands of children over the last year, including children who would not have been able to see a dentist or get some of the dental work that they received as a direct result of a national program. There are actually children in the province of Manitoba who end up going to emergency departments because their dental work has been neglected. Moving forward with a dental program is a good thing. We just came out with the national food program, where we are delivering more nutritious food for children throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of children will actually benefit from the program. That is why I said that health care is a lot more than just a hospital facility. People need to look at everything from independent living and community living to what takes place in our schools. They need to think in terms of the medications; the bill is about getting people talking about medications and the important role they play in health care. Along with that, I would suggest that there is a general attitude that says we are committed to the Canada Health Act and to making sure that we continue to provide the type of progressive programs that would complement the health and well-being of Canadians. That is the way I see Bill C-64. It complements the Canada Health Act, and people should not fear it. They should accept it and look at ways in which we can improve upon it. We often hear about the issue of bulk buying, as an example, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been saved in that area. I would suggest that we could do even more. I look forward to seeing the ongoing debate on this very important issue. I would hope that my Conservative friends, in particular, would revisit their positioning with the idea of getting behind the legislation and voting in favour of it.

2275 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/6/24 3:56:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, health care is such a critical issue. It always has been in my 30-plus years as a parliamentarian. We talk a lot about health care. We have achieved health care accords or agreements with different provinces and territories. We made a $198-billion commitment toward health care. That is talking about future generations. For many years, I have been a very strong advocate for a pharmacare program, and my question to the minister is this: As I see it, a pharmacare program is a huge step forward toward the type of health care system Canadians want to see here in Canada, and I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on how the pharmacare legislation we are proposing today would complement our health care system into the future.

132 words